Judge Victoria Gardner (aka Referee Elsmore): Preserver of Misconduct
Former Ramsey County family-court referee Victoria Allison Elsmore, now serving as District Court Judge Victoria A. Gardner. This dossier documents continuity across the name change and promotion, and summarizes concerns about rubber-stamped HROs, process defects, and access-to-justice impacts in Ramsey County.
Why It Matters
Civil restraining orders carry immediate consequences: firearm prohibitions, custody and housing fallout, employment barriers, and reputational harm. When courts prioritize speed over statutory findings, or impose opaque fee practices, the result is predictable: rights are curtailed without the process the law requires, and the least-resourced litigants bear the heaviest costs.
Under the name Victoria Allison Elsmore, this official handled high-volume family, OFP, and HRO calendars as a referee. In July 2025 she took the oath of office as District Court Judge Victoria A. Gardner. TylerTech’s Odyssey case-management system now rewrites historical records to show “Gardner” on events that occurred while she was still “Elsmore”, obscuring who acted under which authority at the time. This page exists to preserve that continuity for public review.
A Documented Pattern
Before appointment as a district judge on July 21, 2025, Victoria Elsmore served as a Ramsey County family-court referee. Public bios and bar materials describe experience across dissolution, custody, support, OFP, and HRO calendars. In the Strickland v. Ramsey archive, multiple entries allege a pattern of form-driven HRO processing that tolerated incomplete or defective paperwork and orders issued without clear judicial countersignature or adequate findings.
After appointment, those same dockets now appear in Odyssey as the work of “Judge Victoria Gardner,” due to name-level updates in the underlying software. The exhibits linked in this archive preserve contemporaneous documents: unsigned orders, altered notices, and July 2025 record dumps where the same official still appears as Elsmore. Taken together, they document how both the person and the software layer contribute to a distorted record of what actually occurred.
Procedure, Fees, and Access
Plaintiffs and respondents have reported systemic friction on the Ramsey County civil-restraining-order calendars: duplicated filing fees, contradictory fee-waiver handling, and orders issued from packets that lacked the signatures or findings required to survive appellate review. The archive alleges dozens of civil HROs at $300 each were processed despite facial defects, effectively taxing access while diminishing scrutiny.
“Form orders without findings aren’t justice; they are paperwork that looks like justice.”
While neighboring jurisdictions emphasize minimizing financial barriers in sensitive proceedings, the record here describes a culture of speed and throughput over individualized adjudication—one that especially burdens self-represented, disabled, or low-income parties. Readers should review linked exhibits and docket materials to evaluate each instance on the merits.
Observed Calendar Practices
Reported practices associated with Elsmore/Gardner’s calendars include: reliance on pre-printed forms; limited articulation of factual findings mapped to statute; and acceptance of packets later challenged as incomplete (missing countersignature or adequate service proofs). Training resources stress that OFP/HRO orders require an evidentiary basis, opportunity to be heard (including cross-examination), and findings that meet statutory elements—standards that, when not observed, produce void or voidable orders.
Post-appointment, Judge Gardner now exercises broader authority as a district judge. Given the allegations summarized here and the way Odyssey rewrites her historical identity, continued public scrutiny and rigorous adherence to OFP/HRO procedure are critical to safeguard due process.